A CAMPAIGN to find out if Holyrood has the power to hold an independence referendum has been granted a rapid advance to the next stage of its legal fight.

Martin Keatings, on behalf of the Forward as One group, was today granted an “urgent disposal”, meaning his case should be heard in April.

Mr Keatings lost the first round of his case at the Court of Session last month after Lady Carmichael said it was “hypothetical, academic and premature”.

He is now appealing to the court’s inner house in a bid to secure a ruling that Holyrood already has the power to hold Indyref2 without Westminster’s consent. 

READ MORE: Holyrood election result may take days as overnight count scrapped due to Covid

In a hearing this morning, his lawyer argued the appeal should be heard before the Holyrood election, so voters knew the position before going to the polls.

Lawyers for the the Advocate General for Scotland, the UK Government's top law officer on Scotland, objected.

However Lord Malcolm granted the motion and a hearing has now been fixed on the court roll for April 6.

Mr Keatings tweeted afterwards: “Pleased to confirm that Ld Malcolm has ruled in our favour on the motion for urgent disposal & has agreed that the hearings before the inner house should take place before the elections.”

The 1998 Scotland Act which created devolution states that the Union between Scotland and England is a matter reserved to Westminster.

However some academics argue Holyrood could still hold a non-binding vote on independence, albeit one which did not necessarily lead to ending the Union.

In his crowd-funded action, Mr Keatings sought a ruling on whether Holyrood does have such a power. 

READ MORE: Court rejects bid for Indyref2 ruling as 'hypothetical, academic and premature'

He also sought a declarator on whether the SNP Government’s proposed Referendum Bill to deliver Indyref2 - which is unpublished - would be ultra vires.

In a 72-page opinon last month, Lady Carmichael said hiss action was  “hypothetical, academic, and premature, and the pursuer lacks standing to bring it”. 

She said that the lack of concrete referendum legislation left the court unable to rule on it, but added: “I would have reached the same conclusion even if a draft bill were available for consideration.”

The question of another referendum was "also hypothetical, and may never come to pass”.

However she said the question of whether Holyrood could hold is own independence vote could ultimately return to the court at a later stage.

At today's hearing, Aidan O’Neill QC, for Mr Keatings, raised a statement by SNP Constitution Secretary Mike Russell on the evening submissions had concluded before Lady Carmichael.

Mr Russell has said the Scottish Government intended to publish a draft Referendum Bill before the election and that if the SNP was returned to power it would introduce this legislaiton into parliament. 

Mr O’Neill said it was “clearly not just an election issue but an issue of dispute between the UK and Scottish Government, being seen as central to the basis of which voters are being asked to cast their votes”.

READ MORE: Constitution Secretary Michael Russell appears to move goalposts on Indyref2 timing

However Andrew Webster QC, for the Advocate General of Scotland, disagreed with Mr O’Neill’s notion of a need for “urgency” and said the question would still be irrelevant. 

He told the hearing it appeared an early disposal would be justified by Mr O’Neill either ahead of the May 6 vote or the proposed publication of a draft Bill.

He said: “If the draft Bill is indeed relevant… then I beg the question where is the rationale to have this matter disposed of before that Bill is available?

“And if it’s not relevant, I ask the same question – where is the rationale to have the matter disposed of before the Bill is available if it is not relevant?”